Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you...I wouldn't exactly call this "exoneration", as Braun's test was invalidated because the sample collector violated testing protocol by taking the sample home for two days rather than shipping it out immediately, not because Braun demonstrated that the source of his positive reading came from something other than a prohibited substance.

That said, I'm glad to see this outcome, because if MLB has a realistic expectations for its players to play baseball by the rules, the players are entitled to an equally realistic expectation that MLB will play by the rules in conducting the drug testing program, and that MLB should face consequences for breaking the rules just as the players do. The bottom line is that we don't know if Braun broke the rules, but we do know that MLB broke the rules, and the correct decision is to go with what's known.

smark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated(Holds; June 18, 2006)While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.

Originally posted by Texas KellyI wouldn't exactly call this "exoneration", as Braun's test was invalidated because the sample collector violated testing protocol by taking the sample home for two days rather than shipping it out immediately, not because Braun demonstrated that the source of his positive reading came from something other than a prohibited substance.

That's not true, at least according to Will Carroll. He tweeted that Braun's team used science and showed the panel exactly how the one test showed positive. The experiment led to a repeatable result and the arbitrator agreed. There's a lot more to it than sitting in a guy's fridge for two days.

Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you...

Originally posted by VgmastrThat's not true, at least according to Will Carroll. He tweeted that Braun's team used science and showed the panel exactly how the one test showed positive. The experiment led to a repeatable result and the arbitrator agreed. There's a lot more to it than sitting in a guy's fridge for two days.

If that's the case, it boggles the mind as to why it's going unreported by the mainstream sports media. Of course, it's better for all involved (even MLB) if it's a true exoneration, and the public interest is best served by full formal disclosure.

smark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated(Holds; June 18, 2006)While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.

The talking point I heard yesterday was all about the delay with the sample, not anything else.

The new drug policy also has some other worrisome issues.

There have been a couple stories in Toronto about how Jose Bautista has been tested an inordinate numbers of times, likely because the league has a right to "more than random number of tests" due to suspicious situations without what could be called "probably cause."

Originally posted by Texas KellyI wouldn't exactly call this "exoneration", as Braun's test was invalidated because the sample collector violated testing protocol by taking the sample home for two days rather than shipping it out immediately, not because Braun demonstrated that the source of his positive reading came from something other than a prohibited substance.

That's not true, at least according to Will Carroll. He tweeted that Braun's team used science and showed the panel exactly how the one test showed positive. The experiment led to a repeatable result and the arbitrator agreed. There's a lot more to it than sitting in a guy's fridge for two days.

Nevertheless, it is not "exoneration" in any way, any more than OJ was "exonerated".

Originally posted by Texas KellyI wouldn't exactly call this "exoneration", as Braun's test was invalidated because the sample collector violated testing protocol by taking the sample home for two days rather than shipping it out immediately, not because Braun demonstrated that the source of his positive reading came from something other than a prohibited substance.

That's not true, at least according to Will Carroll. He tweeted that Braun's team used science and showed the panel exactly how the one test showed positive. The experiment led to a repeatable result and the arbitrator agreed. There's a lot more to it than sitting in a guy's fridge for two days.

Nevertheless, it is not "exoneration" in any way, any more than OJ was "exonerated".

If what Carroll is saying is true, then it exactly is what exoneration means. This would be like if OJ had a lab repeat the same steps as the crime lab with blood that was not his and got a positive test for OJ's blood.

Nevertheless, it is not "exoneration" in any way, any more than OJ was "exonerated".

If what Carroll is saying is true, then it exactly is what exoneration means. This would be like if OJ had a lab repeat the same steps as the crime lab with blood that was not his and got a positive test for OJ's blood.

"Exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime."

And why shouldn't Braun be exonerated? Damn you internets and your vindictive ways, for saying anybody is guilty until proven innocent, and even then that's not always the case.

Seriously, the guy made his case, the arbitrators came to the decision he did NOT use anything performance enhancing by evidence given forth by the Brewers (note: Selig's team) and due in part to the tester not following procedure, and Braun has been cleared. You can debate the meaning of the term 'exonerated' and draw comparisons to OJ Simpson, Fatty Arbuckle, the Swedish Chef, or the Queen of France all you like until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that people who know more and know the situation better than us made the decision that Ryan Braun hasn't taken any performance enhancing substances; else, he'd still be suspended, right?

"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Frown and the world laughs at you."-Me.

Originally posted by LexusAnd why shouldn't Braun be exonerated? Damn you internets and your vindictive ways, for saying anybody is guilty until proven innocent, and even then that's not always the case.

Seriously, the guy made his case, the arbitrators came to the decision he did NOT use anything performance enhancing by evidence given forth by the Brewers (note: Selig's team) and due in part to the tester not following procedure, and Braun has been cleared. You can debate the meaning of the term 'exonerated' and draw comparisons to OJ Simpson, Fatty Arbuckle, the Swedish Chef, or the Queen of France all you like until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that people who know more and know the situation better than us made the decision that Ryan Braun hasn't taken any performance enhancing substances; else, he'd still be suspended, right?

Good lord. I *HOPE* you are being sarcastic.

All this decision means: they haven't proved that Ryan Braun took anything against the baseball guidelines. It DOES NOT mean that anyone proved that he DIDN'T take anything against baseball guidelines.

They found the testing was unreliable. That's all. It's not a case of Braun being "guilty" or "innocent" it's a case of "we don't know".

If baseball has a problem with the way this played out, they need to speak out against the process. Granted, they'll look ridiculous arguing against a process that they collectively bargained for, but it'll be better than them coming out and smearing one of the faces of their sport because he had the gall to go through the proper channels and win.

No one can assume that Braun took anything, because even after all this time, there's nothing conclusive out there. But baseball's determined to permanently taint Braun as a cheater, so dammit, they'll be happy to tell you ad nasuem that he's a cheater, no matter how much it ruins this poor kid's career. I've never seen a sport so willing to cannibalize one of its top players.

Originally posted by Eddie FamousThey found the testing was unreliable. That's all. It's not a case of Braun being "guilty" or "innocent" it's a case of "we don't know".

As has been said elsewhere above, sources told Will Carroll that not only was the testing unreliable, but that the circumstances of the FedEx collection were replicated and resulted in a false positive for testosterone. We can quibble about the definition of exonerated, but if that is true that goes beyond the arbitor simply throwing his hands up in the air and exclaiming "I give up". Braun was also denied the opportunity to further prove his innocence when MLB rejected his offer of a DNA test.

Originally posted by It's FalseIf baseball has a problem with the way this played out, they need to speak out against the process. Granted, they'll look ridiculous arguing against a process that they collectively bargained for, but it'll be better than them coming out and smearing one of the faces of their sport because he had the gall to go through the proper channels and win.

No one can assume that Braun took anything, because even after all this time, there's nothing conclusive out there. But baseball's determined to permanently taint Braun as a cheater, so dammit, they'll be happy to tell you ad nasuem that he's a cheater, no matter how much it ruins this poor kid's career. I've never seen a sport so willing to cannibalize one of its top players.

(edited by It's False on 25.2.12 1152)

Yes, we can see how it cannibalized Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and the like.

Losing the series opener to Toronto was not the way to start, though. And too bad we have Burkett under contract for another year... this page has a list of all the Sox players who will be free agents or abitration eligible next season.